User Profile: tmarends

tmarends

Member Since: September 03, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • April 30, 2015 at 3:44pm

    @MSSoldier — did you actually READ the story you linked?? That baker did NOT refuse to bake a cake… they refused offensive words. And the buyer wasn’t asking for a Bible quote… they were paraphrasing the Bible.

  • [-1] April 30, 2015 at 3:33pm

    Where the cake is used is immaterial…. If someone asks for a cake that says “Congratulations John” the baker should make it… just because it’s going to be used at a Klan rally for an outgoing Grand Wizard, for example, is meaningless. As long as any words or images cannot be construed as offensive, the baker should make the cake… and “Congratulations John” is not is anyway offensive to anyone.

  • [3] April 30, 2015 at 3:23pm

    @MSSoldier — the courts, again and again, have said you CAN refuse offensive words and images, you CANNOT refuse the basic service (selling a cake). THAT is the difference.

  • [-2] April 29, 2015 at 3:52pm

    HummingBird — Every person sins, whether they want to acknowledge they sin or not. YOU have sinned today. I have also sinned today, I don’t deny it. You can say you are going to refuse to engage in sinful behavior all you want, but the truth is you DO engage in sinful behavior each and every day of your life. It is through Christ that I am washed clean of my sins, and nothing you, nor anyone else, says or does can change that.

  • [1] April 29, 2015 at 3:36pm

    The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, signed by President Lincoln, bans marriage to more than one spouse at a time. This provides legal precedence for denying polygamous marriage recognition by the state

  • April 29, 2015 at 3:00pm

    @pa_native — Yes… for 200+ years women were the property of men. A man went to a woman’s father and bought her for a price (called a dowry) to become his wife and mother of his children. The “Historical” definition of marriage HAS changed.

  • [-1] April 28, 2015 at 5:46pm

    @Bytheppl4theppl — Jesus often ate meals with thieves and prostitutes… it DOES say that in the Bible… and He was often rebuked for doing so by the religious leaders of the time. If you want to be “separate from the world” then don’t set up a business IN the world.

  • April 28, 2015 at 5:40pm

    The difference with “no shirt, no shoes, no service” is that it is applied equally to ALL people. ANYONE who enters not wearing shoes, regardless of race, gender, age, etc, is being refused service. I would hope the business owner would allow someone who lost their legs to enter without shoes on though.

  • [13] April 27, 2015 at 1:49pm

    As a gay man, I happen to agree with this decision. AND the same goes for a bakery… you CAN refuse words or images you find offensive, but you CANNOT refuse the basic service… be that printing T-shirts, or baking a cake.

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] April 14, 2015 at 2:58pm

    I don’t know about anyone else… but what I learned as part of customer service is you make every attempt to provide the services you offer to anyone who wants them, as long as it is 1) legal, and 2) available.

  • [-4] April 13, 2015 at 3:33pm

    Most people, and that includes LGBT people, just go to what is the most convenient to their location. Why go 10 miles out of your way when you have a florist down the street?

    In this case, this was a business which provided a place to host weddings. Unlike a church, which also plays host to weddings, businesses CANNOT discriminate. If they don’t want to serve ALL the public who seeks their business, then WHY are they in business? You say they have the RIGHT of conscience to refuse to participate… and you are right… the INDIVIDUAL has that right. The BUSINESS does not. Their wedding venue must host any legal wedding in their state. Churches, on the other hand, can set parameters to their venue (like one party must be a member of the church, or the couple must go through per-marital counseling with the church first).

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] April 4, 2015 at 10:17pm

    What don’t you people understand?? This baker did NOT refuse to sell them a cake… she refused the WORDS he wanted on the cake. If she makes wedding cakes with pastillage flowers on it, then who cares where it is eaten? It should be sold to anyone who wants it.

  • [-5] April 3, 2015 at 6:42pm

    I think it’s one thing to print words, or create images one finds offensive, and creating a basic (although nicely decorated) cake. Please refuse to print “I hate X” on any cake… but don’t refuse the cake itself without the words.

    Also, where is the line at a “participant” in a wedding? Is the baker really “participating” by baking and decorating a cake, maybe delivering it to the venue and setting it up, and then leaving?? I can see the point of a photographer or caterer who will be there through the entire event? But someone, like a baker or florist, who delivers their goods and leaves before the event (wedding) happens?? To me, that is NOT participating in the event.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] April 2, 2015 at 1:20pm

    As a gay man I have no problem with this. Let a baker only provide “wedding services” for certain churches and nobody else. Perfectly legal. I do, however, see two issues:

    1) The baker looses all other wedding services. People who do not marry in those churches, cannot get cakes from them, and they will lose all profits from people who would otherwise go to them for their services (like an atheist couple having a wedding in their back yard).

    2) IF one of the churches the baker has contracted with DOES host a “gay” marriage, the baker is on the hook to provide the cake, as they have a contract with the church to provide those services. No getting out of it, you’ve already signed a contract with that church.

    Responses (2) +
  • [5] April 1, 2015 at 8:24pm

    How is selling someone something “participating” in the event it is being used for? Is the SuperMarket participating in my Wednesday night poker game because I bought soda, beer, and chips from them?

  • March 31, 2015 at 5:24pm

    The last time I checked a woman CAN purchase men’s clothing… and men CAN purchase women’s lingerie. It’s not discriminatory to NOT carry items for sale. You cannot FORCE someone to sell something they do not normally carry… but you CANNOT refuse to sell anything you normally do to anyone who wishes to purchase.

  • [1] March 31, 2015 at 5:18pm

    The courts have regularly stated the offensive material CAN be excluded.

    A printer CAN refuse printing words that call for someone’s death
    A printer CANNOT refuse a flyer for a book club at the LGBT center

    A baker CAN refuse to put 2 grooms atop a wedding cake
    A baker CANNOT refuse to sell a wedding cake (without 2 grooms atop it) to a gay couple.

  • March 31, 2015 at 4:51pm

    Courts have decided, again and again, that offensive images or words CAN be omitted from any work, like a cake, but the cake itself MUST be sold to one who wishes it. IF the bakery doesn’t want to put 2 grooms on top of the cake, that IS permitted… but they are still required to make the cake. What the baker, or photographer, can choose to do or not to do, as individuals, is DIFFERENT than what the bakery or photography studio is required to provide… the same for ALL who seek their public services. The problem occurs when the business and the individual are the same. In those cases, the business rules apply. That’s the price of running a business in the public square. Don’t like it? You can always hire someone to do the work you personally refuse to do.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] March 31, 2015 at 4:27pm

    Blest — so you think a business has the right to refuse service to a black, Asian, or Jewish person, just for being who they are?

  • [3] March 27, 2015 at 6:11pm

    The difference is you refused to do something for everyone across the board. Nobody got those cake designs. But if you normally design a 3-tier wedding cake with a floral design, then you should be prepared to sell it to anyone who wants one, regardless of where they intend to use it.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love